Pawlenty on Egypt
Tim Pawlenty gives advice on how he would have handled the Egyptian crisis.
I like what he has to say, and it highlights some of what was missing in Obama’s reaction:
…[F]irst of all, get your own team on the same page. That’s lesson number one in a crisis: communicate clearly. Number two: we have to articulate, when we have that kind of an uncertain crisis unfolding, what our principles are,” the former governor said. “One, we don’t want a radical Islamic result. Two, we favor democracy. And President Mubarak and Suleiman or anyone else who may be purporting to be leading the nation needs to embrace those principles.”
Funny how simple it seems when Pawlenty says it. And funny how hard it’s been for Obama to either say it or do it—especially the “we don’t want a radical Islamic result” part.
[ADDENDUM: Historian Niall Ferguson vents.
And funny how hard it’s been for Obama to either say it or do it–especially the “we don’t want a radical Islamic result” part.
Obama saying this would help bring Islamic radicals to power in Egypt.
IT: sure thing.
Because we all know the only reason Egyptians would vote for such people—or the only way they could come to power—is that the people of Egypt hate the US so much that they’ll do whatever is the opposite of what Obama says.
Great idea for new US foreign policy: speak out in favor of whatever you don’t want, and fail to promote what you want, and the world will do the opposite of what you say, secretly giving you what you really do want. Voila! Let’s call it the Briar Patch Doctrine.
How many times did the Bush administration admonish the Palestinians not to elect Hamas?
How did that turn out?
Actually Ms.K, IT may have a point. Remember the whole point of Obama’s Cairo speech was to move away from nasty ol’ G. Bush’s democracy spreading effort in the middle east. Now we have democratic movements sprouting like crab grass all over the desert.
Or it could just be that irony rules the universe.
IT: do you really think that you are making some sort of point?
If you knew much about this blog, you’d know that most people here are not huge Bush fans.
The Hamas election was a disaster, although just about everything in the area is a disaster and will continue to be so, whether Bush or Obama or someone else is president.
Here’s a piece I wrote at the time of the Hamas victory.
The time to articulate – and push for – a democratic future was all those decades that the US was pouring money into Mubarak’s coffers.
Any pronouncement now – by any American president – would ring hollow, and invite a backlash.
The fact is that we bankrolled the guy they’re rebelling against for decades, without attempting to moderate him or do anything for the people of Egypt.
They know that.
It will be very hard for Egypt to be “moderate” about anything because it is so grossly overpopulated.
Number two: we have to articulate, when we have that kind of an uncertain crisis unfolding, what our principles are,” the former governor said. “One, we don’t want a radical Islamic result. Two, we favor democracy.
Obama cannot publicly enunciate his principles, because they’re pretty much the inverse of Pawlenty’s. Compare and contrast his policies or lack thereof re Egypt and Iran. Actions, words, etc.
Two thoughts immediately came to mind when you pointed out the contrast.
Life is tough; life is tougher when you’re stupid. (But that’s unfair because we’ve been told O and crew are very, very smart.)
So I’ll paraphrase Clausewitz in fairness to O and suggest it’s easy to solve the problem from the sidelines. (Remember Gitmo?)
In politics all things are simple; the problem is that even simple things are very hard.
The one consistent criticism of Obama from all quarters during the crisis is he should have said less. Strangely, that was his approach to the Iran riots.
Ben David – you got a point. And it would certainly ring hollow coming from a president who has cut funding to democratic activists in the country in question.
I still think that despite not being able to have much influence – and despite being unable to direct exactly where that influence will lead – it is best to take the most moral position possible, and Pawlenty’s is about right on that score. It would be particularly valuable as a warning to the mullahs in Iran that we won’t be so passive on take two. Dare to dream, right?
Probably the best criticism of Obama’s performance on Egypt is Niall Ferguson’s, and I hope everyone saw his white hot blue streak on Morning Joe yesterday. Beyond what Ferguson says, I’m not willing to go, since as I understand Ferguson’s point, it isn’t that Obama could have got a much different result, but rather that he and his team seem to have no understanding of what the possibilities and probabilities are, and are thus unprepared for whatever happens next. And again, a statement like Pawlenty’s would have made it pretty clear that while we are willing to tolerate and tepidly support the ousting of Mubarak; tolerating an MB takeover is something else.
How you show Egypt prudently that there are consequences to electing Islamists is another question. I’ve heard suggestions, but I don’t have the competence to judge.
This is all very much still in media res.
Barry Rubin should be mandatory reading for the Administration:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-next-in-egypt-detailed-assessment.html
His last few paragraphs are jewels.
I suspect the average Achmed six prayer rugs in Cairo doesn’t give an infidel’s severed head about anything Obama might say or doesn’t say. Mr. Obama is a joke at best on the ‘arab street’. Furthermore I doubt anyone off-shore takes him seriously after he gave the Queen of England an iPod loaded with his campaign speeches. As Sarkosy would say, “Tres gauche.”
It’s almost as if the Left has this idea that words equal magical powers. If you say something, you can make it happen in reality.
What kind of fantasy world are they still stuck on, eh?
kolnia: yes, I saw that clip of Ferguson. I meant to put it up; thanks for reminding me. I just added it as an addendum to the post.
Pretty sharp smackdown.
It’s almost as if the Left has this idea that words equal magical powers. If you say something, you can make it happen in reality.
Remember these “magical” words from 2003, Ymar?
“U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying “bring them on” because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks. ”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0702-08.htm
Pretty sharp smackdown.
Hardly sporting.
It’s like the NY Yankees up against a T-ball team.
We live in interesting times to put it euphemistcally. Heres some intresting article about foreign goings on.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8207501/china-biggest-security-challenge-since-ww2
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-reporter-lara-logan-sexually-assaulted-and-beaten-in-egypt-cbs-20110216-1avjj.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-ready-to-go-to-war-to-safeguard-national-interests/articleshow/7482264.cms
Remember these “magical” words from 2003, Ymar?
I remember them quite well.
It’s something someone with a spine can say, and is freared by the spineless. As well as the soon to be dead jihadis.
Also, unlike the Obamanation, those words of Bush were and are backed up by such figures as General Petraeus, who, in case you had forgotten, comes armed with real power. Can you says “bombs”, IT? Can you say JDAMs, IT? Can you say sniper kill shots from more than a mile away, It? Can you say search and destroy missions, IT? Those are what backed up Bush’s words.
Words alone, weren’t expected to destroy the jihadists trying to cause trouble in Iraq.
Or did you think the Left were as willing to back up their war rhetoric as conservatives are?
Oh, it does seem Obama can back up some of his war rhetoric. When it comes to his political opponents bring a knife, Obama likes to say they’ll bring a gun to that fight.
And I guess they did in Tucson.
It’s something someone with a spine can say, and is freared by the spineless.
Thank you for that answer, Ymar.
You have made my year.
A Ronulan friend of mine (libertarian, in total denial about Islam) sent me a link about that poor newswoman, the 60 Minutes reporter, who was brutally beaten and gang-raped in Cairo’s “Liberty” Square. The CBS report said that 200 “men” overwhelmed her team and security men, and that some Egyptian women and about 20 Egyptian soldiers were eventually able to pull the poor lady out of the savage mob.
So I sent a message back saying I wasn’t surprised, along with an Egyptian poll that found that 98% of the foreign women report being sexually harassed there, and over 80% of the native women, and the Ronulan friend said “it’s not much better in the United States,” which is just insane.
So I said, “Oh, really? Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOPb47J12Yc&feature=related ”
This is the same woman who called me a bigot because I was angry at the muslims’ misogyny. She, of course, thinks of herself as a feminist, a particularly bitter joke.
It never ceases to amaze me, the apparently endless human capacity for DENIAL.
Ferguson looks like he has seen a ghost. Makes you wonder what conversations he has had over the last several weeks. Israeli government officials for sure and probably intelligence. Probably also establishment Sunni regimes. Also the British.
It must have been painful to talk to the MSNBC folks, who are like the dimmest students you are ever likely to have in a seminar.
Wretched thinks the world is on fire.
You have made my year.
Your year must be pretty sad then. Obama get ya down yet.
I noticed you ignored the fact that Obama and the Left’s rhetoric is just that in war, rhetoric. Unless it’s against domestic enemies called conservatives, then it becomes something serious.
Why is that do you think.
Beverly, for most humans, they are perfectly fine seeing others suffer, so long as they can gain personally and be able to tell themselves that they are good in the bargain.
This particular trait of the Left, seen in various examples such as George Soros’ lack of a conscience concerning his eager profiteering with the Nazis in redistributing Jewish property, is almost ar requirement of their cult membership. Those individuals not showing the total absence of a conscience, are punished by the cult.
This is the same woman who called me a bigot because I was angry at the muslims’ misogyny.
The LEft often accuses other people of what is only true about the Left. It’s a particular mental defense mechanisms that allows them to override what would otherwise be a personal sense of responsibility and guilt for their crimes against humanity.
My personal argumentation style with my husband is distressingly like what I see on the Left: if he disagrees with me, it must be because I haven’t talked enough. Therefore he needs to shut up and let me keep talking, because once I get my whole message out, he’ll agree. Right?
(I’m not proud of this. I figure, however, that self-awareness is the first step to recovery.)
“How many times did the Bush administration admonish the [Phakestinians] not to elect Hamas? How did that turn out?”
Implied that had he not admonished them, Hamas would have lost. Lib Cluelessness 101.
Now, after hearing how things are InTheory, let’s see how things are InFact: The Phakestinians elected Hamas because it better represented their desire for the eradication of the Jewish State, and because Gaza, having been cleared of all Jewish military presence, had the freedom to elect them (contra the Phakestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria).
There are a lot of lessons to be learned here, I believe, which means Inthy (like any other libwit) won’t learn any of them.
“The LEft often accuses other people of what is only true about the Left.”
Herman Cain agrees.
I agree that Obama & Co. don’t have a clue, but since Obama is very, very sympathetic to Islam, or is perhaps a crypto-Muslim himself, perhaps this revolutionary ferment, out of which a Muslim theocracy will possibly emerge–for who else in this revolutionary stew in Egypt is as organized, disciplined, ruthless, and “on message” as the Ikhwan–is his preferred result. From what I gather the Army–not exactly a real fan of free-wheeling democracy I would think–has been holding it together in Egypt and holding the Ikhwan at arm’s length for quite a few decades, but can they continue to hold it together, and to fend off the Ikhwan?
I am continually amazed by TV commentary about all the young Egyptians (the average age of the Egyptian population is 24 years old) in the street who are “longing for democracy.” Change away from joblessness, a kleptocratic tyrant, police repression, and a stagnant economy they want, but “democracy”? This perceived longing for “democracy,” and I presume the “equality” and “”rule of law” that come along with it, in a country in which an estimated 90% of the women have been forced to undergo Female Genital Mutilation, in which a dwindling Coptic and Christian minority (it is not widely remembered that before its vibrant Christian civilization was crushed by invading Muslim armies, in the centuries between the death of Christ and the birth of Muhammad i.e. 1st through 7th centuries A.D., ancient Egypt had become a majority Christian country) is routinely persecuted, and that is home to the Muslim Brotherhood?
The real question, presuming it is really “democracy” they are after, is what kind of “democracy” and for whom?
To add on to what Wolla wrote: Democracy in some countries seems to come down to choosing which type of trendy fascism is wanted.
Muslims love to employ Islam’s “Holy Deceptions,” to do a Takiyya and Kitman number on unbelievers, by offering up a whole smorgasbord of disinformation, by playing word games.
Here, for instance, is the major theoretician of the Ikhwan, Sayyid Qutb, arguing that, only when Islam destroys all man-made forms of government and rulles all the world and all men, will men will finally attain “universal freedom”:
“Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to Allah, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man’s servitude to man.” [Quoted from Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad]
P.S. Qutb was all for substituting man’s servitude to Allah–for that, after all, is what the word “Islam” means i.e. being the “slave of Allah,” hence the common Muslim name Abdullah “abd” being the Arabic word for “slave” –for “man’s servitude to man,” which is what Qutb called man-made governments and laws.
I also think that Pawlenty’s message was on target.
Not well, as we know. It’s worth remembering, though, that the United States does not have colonies; we should not be in the business of telling other countries how to run themselves. (The notable exception, of course, is after wartime. We rebuilt the Iraqis government for them, as we’d done previously for Germany, Japan, and others.)
On the other hand, the United States gets to decide who its friends are, and how to maintain that friendship. The United States would have been perfectly justified, after the Hamas electoral victory, to deny financial aid to them.
And similarly, using Pawlenty’s approach, I think it would have been quite proper for President Obama to say to the Egyptian people: “We supported Mr. Mubarak for many years because he helped our allies. If he is no longer your choice for leader, we wish you well with your new path. But please understand that the United States remains committed to promoting democracy and freedom for all. We would welcome a democratically-elected Egyptian government, and would do our best to help as appropriate. We are concerned about a takeover by the Egyptian military, and do not intend to support a military dictatorship. And we are very concerned about the prospect of an Egypt controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. If that is the new Egypt you choose, you will have to do so with no help from us.”
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Your year must be pretty sad then.
Don’t sell yourself short, Ymar.
It is quite an achievement.
You have openly stated in public what your fellow American conservatives have only allowed themselves to think in the privacy of their bedrooms and think tanks.
Jamie ,
Women tend to prefer cooperation through communication while men often prefer the “lead, follow, or get out of the way” doctrine.
However, on the topic of communication, only 20% of the total information passed on between humans is contained in the specific words we use. The other 80% is contained in smell, taste, touch, visual ques, body language, voice tones, and a manifold variety of other things.
Sometimes, to get your point across, you’ll need to limit your use of words.
There are many channels you can consciously make use of should you be able to master the use of body language both in speaking it and interpreting it. A super majority of humans use it unconsciously. Because it is unintentional, a lot of space is left unused in the bandwidth.
**************
Bush told the Iraqis that Saddam had to go. Well Saddam went and dropped, kicked the bucket, got hung.
How did that, eh? It went rather well.
You have openly stated in public what your fellow American conservatives have only allowed themselves to think in the privacy of their bedrooms and think tanks.
And what might that be.
How strange that you yourself are okay with Obama’s call to war rhetoric, cheap as it is. You are also perfectly fine with Leftists being bigots and racists when it comes to Islam and Muslims. I thought the Left was all about diversity and tolerance.
And what might that be.
You saying Bush saying,
There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is ‘bring them on’. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation.
Was a good idea.
Good Lord. Ymarsakar, don’t feed the troll.
Was a good idea.
The topic is magical word usage by the Left. What does any of that have to do with the Left’s belief that words alone constitute decisive action on the world stage?
Ymarsakar, don’t feed the troll.
If you want to make that happen, convince Neo to get rid of him. Otherwise, I don’t think you can actually control what umpteen hundreds of commenters at a site like Neo will or will not do.
Logistically it’s not possible.
Egypt is a walking dead, just as all Arab civilization. Its collapse is inevitable, given population growth and inability to modernize. So the best thing to do, at lest in public, was to keep silence. The only resolution of this crisis is a Malthusian one: war, famine, plague. We will see it before our eyes in several years.
IT: do you really think that you are making some sort of point?
everything he knows about the world, he was told by them, and he never questions his masters… like a good dog, he will bite the leg of anyone they want him to